i. The Court finds that its personal jurisdiction is established insofar as, as indicated in paragraph 2 above, the Respondent State is a Party to the Charter and the Protocol. On 7 March 2025, the Respondent State deposited the instrument of withdrawal of the said Declaration with the African Union Commission. In this regard, the Court reiterates its position, as set out in paragraph 2 of this judgment, that the withdrawal of the Declaration does not affect cases pending before the said withdrawal takes effect. As the present Application was already pending before the Respondent State withdrew its Declaration, the withdrawal has no effect on the case.12 ii. The Court also finds that its temporal jurisdiction is established insofar as the facts of the case occurred after the Respondent State became a party to the instruments referenced in paragraph 2 above. iii. With regard to territorial jurisdiction, the Court finds that the violations alleged by the Applicant took place on the territory of the Respondent State. Consequently, the Court has territorial jurisdiction to consider this Application. 46. The Court, therefore, holds that it has jurisdiction to hear the instant Application. VI. ADMISSIBILITY 47. Under Article 6(2) of the Protocol, “The Court shall rule on the admissibility of cases taking into account the provisions of Article 56 of the Charter. “ Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda (jurisdiction) (2016) 1 AfCLR 540, §§ 66-68; Houngue Eric Noudehouenou v. Republic of Benin, AfCHPR, Application No. 003/2020, Order of 5 May 2020 (provisional measures), §§ 4- 5 and Corrigendum of 29 July 2020; Kouadio Kobena Fory v. Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (merits and reparations) (2 December 2021) 5 AfCLR 682, § 2 and Andrew Ambrose Cheusi v. United Republic of Tanzania (judgment) (26 June 2020) 4 AfCLR 219, § 38. 12 15